Frankenstein Response
* What makes Frankenstein a work of science fiction, and what argues against that hypothesis?
Science fiction is defined as an imagined future where major technological or scientific advances have impact on social and environmental changes. Therefore, the story of Frankenstein fits the category well. What makes Frankenstein a work of science fiction is its creation of Victor Frankenstein’s monster. Victor defies the natural laws of life and death by reanimating the tissue of a plethora of different body parts that belonged to the deceased. By doing so, he uses his teaches of the alchemists he admired as a child as well as the new acquired knowledge from M. Walden to help fuel his drive to uncover a new secret in science, which in his case is to figure out how dead body parts move. While he’s experimenting, he creates something that science can no longer explain and something he can no longer control. Since Frankenstein tends to be considered the first piece of science fiction, we have to discuss why it could be another genre altogether. What argues against this novel not being a work of fiction is that the story could be viewed as the tragedy of man who let his ambition end the life of himself and those around him.
* What issues of moral philosophy are primary in the novel?
The issues of moral philosophy are very high within the novel. As seen through history, religion was very dominant during the Enlightenment and it was one of the factors that fueled the flame into the direction of that time period so for a story like this to come out was groundbreaking. The story depicts a man playing God through the scientific method of reanimation by essentially bring the dead back which defies the natural laws. In doing so, he faces the consequences of his creation which led to his remorse of it. The relationship between Frankenstein and his monster is not one of master and creation, it becomes horrific especially when the monster kills. Therefore, all the tragedy turned out to be the result of Frankenstein going against nature through science. This makes you wonder how far can science go before we no longer can control what we’ve created? It also makes you think about when we will know the limit of our reach in science and how far is too far.
* Why did I assign this?
This novel was assigned to highlight the interest in how far one can take science. I believe that it’s also supposed to demonstrate the cons of what can happen. This novel also foreshadows future scientific questions that remain relevant now which are will we always be able to control what we create and if not, when will the things we invent overcome us? Which I believe we will continue to address throughout the remainder of the class.
I really like how you said “ he creates something that science can no longer explain or control.” I honestly think that was the fear of the romantics and of those watching the rapid industrialization of England. When were they going to create a machine that could no longer be controlled or explained by science? I think you touch upon the religious references in the novel well. I think to really understand the religious references we need to speak about Paradise Lost. I hope we can continue this conversation below. Great answer to the last question! Nice to meet you Angelica.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist257s02/students/Becky/paradise.html
Milton’s work really seemed to influence Shelley.
If the creature is Frankenstein’s Adam, was he be punished like Adam and Eve were for their pursuit of knowledge? The creature seemed to suffer more and more as he learned about the world and what he couldn’t experience. Knowledge bringing suffering is a huge theme in Frankenstein and in the Bible. Humans were supposedly kicked out of the Garden of Eden for their pursuit of hidden knowledge that came with Eve eating the apple.
Hello, Angelica,
Your post brings up an interesting question about Victor’s control over the monster. Is it really that he has no control over the monster, or is he electing not to have control by ignoring his creation until it is too late? When the monster and Frankenstein meet again, the monster begs for his compassion and interest. Although the monster clearly has free will, it seems as though Victor is making a choice not to have agency in the aftermath. Ironically this makes him more responsible for all of the horrible things that happen. There are numerous times in the novel where he elects not to do the right thing. He allows Justine to be executed even though he probably could have presented evidence that would have saved her life. He could show kindness to the monster and perhaps turn his behavior around—although the monster has already murdered a child at that point. If Victor had been a nurturing and compassionate creator, should we believe that he could have controlled the actions of the monster? If so, what is the cautionary note—is it that humanity must take responsibility for its advancement? For example, even though factories are efficient and economic, we must take responsibilities for the environment and working condition of employees. Or is it that we must not seek that advancement at all?